Skip to main content

What could be so important about my father’s U-boat?


Bear Island
(1979)

It shouldn’t really be that easy to stumble across hitherto unencountered Alistair MacLean movies. There have been fewer than 15 big screen adaptations of his work over the years; the failure of Bear Island all but killed any continued interest in an author who had been highly prolific during the ’60s and ‘70s. MacLean aficionados will opine that his novels tend to be unsympathetically re-envisioned, bearing (ahem) little resemblance to his original masterpieces, but it’s difficult to buy into any notion that works of art are being desecrated.


MacLean churned out standard format boy’s own adventure yarns, usually involving spies or WWII escapades, and the resulting movies are invariably undistinguished fodder for weekend TV matinees; hence their forgettableness (and conversely, their discoverability). Everyone is familiar with (less than) a handful of adaptations (The Guns of Navarone, Where Eagles Dare, Ice Station Zebra), but his heyday in the movies had passed by the early ‘70s. Unsurprisingly, Bear Island has few credentials plot-wise to make its case as an undiscovered gem. Nor has it assembled an amazing cast (an idiosyncratically chosen one, certainly). But it does have something very vital going for it. One might argue it represents merely a superficial factor if the script isn’t there. But, in an era of CGI breath and fake snow, the movie’s accomplishment is all the more arresting; authenticity of location.


Bear Island features no bears, which should be made clear from the outset. The setting is the Norwegian island of the same name, although director Don Sharp and his cast and crew shot in British Columbia. Indeed, the film’s one claim to fame (since no one saw it) was the adverse publicity surrounding its $9m (US) cost; up to that point Canada’s most expensive film. It’s difficult to see why the producers thought such an investment would pay off, other than through a failure to recognise the shifting sands of audience interests following the arrival of Lucas, Spielberg et al. Unlike other big budget bombs of the period, it’s easy to see why the picture cost as much as it did; logistically, a shoot in such conditions would not be cheap. And, in terms of vistas, the results are all up there on screen.


Particularly during the early stages, the atmosphere created by this vast, desolate, snowy expanse is palpable. Haunting and evocative, it put me increasingly in mind of another film that opted to genuinely facing the elements, also in British Columbia; John Carpenter’s The Thing. I’d be surprised if Carpenter had not seen Bear Island; he would surely have been aware of it. Once that connection has been made, it’s easy to draw further parallels between the two; all Bear Island really needed was a beserk alien creature to engage the viewer, although a beserk creature in pursuit of Nazi gold might have been a difficult motivation to justify. Nevertheless, both pictures feature a group of difficult to individualise scientists inhabiting a remote outpost in sub-zero conditions; some of whom are not who they claim to be, their numbers are gradually whittled down, they are cut off from rescue, they are increasingly subject to sabotage and the intrusion of the elements. Certainly, during the mid-section, when a team member goes out to check on the generator (which then explodes), I could have momentarily forgotten which film I was watching.


Unfortunately, there is little else too make this compelling. Sharp, who worked in a variety of British TV (The Avengers) and film (the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu series, the not-bad-at-all Robert Powell The 39 Steps the year before this) stages the action competently, and cinematographer Alan Hume mostly ensures the joins between the exteriors and the Pinewood sets are not too obvious. But the premise and scenario are murky from the off. Introductions inform us this is a collection of UN-sanctioned scientists sent to study climate change in the area (changed from the novel, which featured a movie making crew). It sounds quite topical, but we never see them studying anything. I’m not even clear why the members of the party intent on plundering the gold required such a cover. Wouldn’t they have free rein to do pretty what they wanted on this barren wasteland (the nearby UN base seems oblivious to what’s going on)?


As soon as they arrive, Donald Sutherland’s beardy American Lansing (Sutherland’s Canadian status may explain his unlikely action lead duties; he reportedly took the part because he’d taken up sailing as a pastime) wants to check out the derelict U-boat base; his daddy was a U-boat commander, you see. Lansing effortlessly figures out what is going on, so the only intrigue left available is who is doing what and why. Sharp and his co-writers are so clumsy tossing frozen red herrings about it is quickly evident that anyone who comes under suspicion can’t be the true culprit (no double double-bluffs here). But there’s a greater problem in not really caring who is doing what and why. There are several parties after the precious metal, but there seem to be a greater number of faceless bystanders who never get a look in.


Reinforcing the pulpiness of the material, several of the cast have that “I’ll appear in anything as long as it’s crap” credentials. Richard Widmark is a Norwegian (he’d just come off The Swarm, so was clearly on a roll). Lloyd Bridges, is not yet consciously going for self-parody, but that’s the only difference between what he does here and the following year’s Airplane! Sharp regular Christopher Lee is a Pole, but he’s sadly under-used. Then there’s Vanessa Redgrave, also sporting a interesting accent, as the kind-of love interest. It’s rather refreshing to find Redgrave and Sutherland in such traditionally macho fare, but unfortunately their presence signifies little. Sutherland perhaps isn’t at his best, as he requires more than a one-note hero to bring out his eccentricities. Still, at least he gets stuck into an unlikely bout of fisticuffs. He would return to an unwelcoming island in Eye of the Needle, another Nazi-related picture, two years later. A very young Bruce Greenwood plays a technician, in his movie debut.


The plot wasn’t going to stand up to scrutiny under the best of circumstances, but the lack of distractions highlights a number of gaping holes; no one would seriously go along with Widmark dismissing calls for outside help, not when team members are dropping like flies. And wither the strange decision by Sutherland and Redgrave to make off on piddly little snow scooters, leaving the bad guys to take advantage of the much more impressive hydro-copters?


Occasional moments suggest something much more interesting could be done with this setting; there’s a highly impressive U-boat pen set that is barely used. The sight of a handcuffed skeleton in a German uniform suggests the discovery of long buried secrets; it’s rather typical of MacLean that said secrets turn out to be boring old ingots. If the makers had veered off into something offbeat and uncanny, Bear Island might at least retain cult appeal. But its plotting is too unexceptional to lend it status beyond that of a handsomely mounted, ploddingly predictable adventure yarn.

*** 

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.